The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday restrained the construction firm of Centaurus tower, from handing over the possession of multiplex within the complex to any entertainment company. The court took the decision on a civil suit filed by chairman Cinepax film entertainment company in which he contended that despite using his company’s name in the advertisement of multiplex in the multi-storey complex and making a final deal to lease the multiplex to its company, Pak Gulf Construction Limited (PGCL) entered into an agreement with Mandviwala Entertainment Limited (MEL) which was illegal and against the rights of Cinepax.
A single member bench comprising of Justice Riaz Ahmad Khan was hearing the case in which counsel for the petitioner Advocate Khurram Hashmi submitted before the court that PGCL was constructing a multi-purpose, multi-tower complex in the federal capital, adding that when Cinepax learnt of PGCL’s plans to build the complex, it introduced the concept of a multi-screen Cineplex and laying out the benefits of having such a Cineplex. “Since Cinepax was the only successful and well regarded Cineplex operator in Pakistan, PGCL therefore started negotiating with Cinepax in relation to the terms of a lease,” he added.
The petitioner cited Pak Gulf Construction (private) Limited and Mandviwala Entertainment Limited (MEL) as respondents.
He informed by 2009, negotiations between Cinepax and PGCL had become sufficiently advanced and PGCL had started using Cinepax’s name in its marketing materials. In March 2010, PGCL’s representatives even contacted the architectural firm (“Mesbur”) engaged by Cinepax to see how to improve the design originally proposed by PGCL.
He said that after the final agreement PGCL started using delaying tactics in executing a formal lease document within sixty days. In the meantime, Cinepax came to know that PGC was mulling to give lease to a third party instead of Cinepax. On February 13, 2012, Cinepax received a termination letter by PGCL which stated that PGCL has decided not to go ahead with the lease in favour of Cinepax and has entered into an agreement with a third party, MEL, he stated.
However, the petitioner, in his petition said that PGCL has been marketing the complex ever since 2009 on the basis that a Cineplex there will be operated by Cinepax and the current five-screen design of the multiplex was designed by an architect engaged by Cinepax for this particular site. He stated that on warranties by PGCL, Cinepax has incurred massive expenditures like 35,500,000 in obtaining projectors for the Multiplex, in payments to its architect of Rs1,800,000 and in payments to an acoustics expert of Rs1,600,000.
The counsel for the petitioner prayed before the court to direct the PGCL to handover possession of the site for multiplex to Cinepax and to restrain the PGCL as well as Mandviwala Entertainment Company from interfering in the contractual right of Cinepax under the agreement. He requested the court to refrain the respondents from using the design of the multiplex for any other purpose.
